JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pankaj Rai and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority. 2. While entertaining Writ C No.26005 of 2024 on 08.08.2024, it was pressed by learned Senior Counsel that as the petitioners had instituted the earlier Writ C No.21518 of 2021 against the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by State Government under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973[Act 19] and the same is pending before the learned Single Judge, in the interest of justice both the matters are to be heard together. 3. Accordingly, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and by an administrative order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, both the matters were placed before this Court for adjudication. 4. As both the writ petitions are arising out of the same issue, hence, with the consent of parties, both the petitions are tagged and heard together. 5. The first Writ C No.21518 of 2021 under Article 226 of Constitution of India was preferred by the petitioner inter-alia with following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the E-auction proceedings in respect of property no.LMCP-01 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-02 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-03 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-04 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-05 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-06 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-07 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-08 admeasuring an area 262.50 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-09 admeasuring an area 218 sq. mtrs. (Commercial), property no.LMCP-10 respectively situated at Pocket-C, Shardha Puri Phase-II Housing Scheme, Meerut published by respondent development authority which are being carved out from the plot allotted to the petitioner i.e. a plot under category Health Centre admeasuring an area 2920 sq. mtrs. situated at Pocket-C, Phase-II, Shradha Puri, District Meerut. (ii) issue any other and further writ, order or direction commanding the respondent development authority to maintain status-quo over the plot in question i.e. a plot admeasuring an area 2920 sq. mtrs. mtrs. situated at Pocket-C, Phase-II, Shradha Puri, District Meerut. (ii) issue any other and further writ, order or direction commanding the respondent development authority to maintain status-quo over the plot in question i.e. a plot admeasuring an area 2920 sq. mtrs. under category of Health Centre situated in Shradha Puri, Pocket-C, Phase-2 Scheme, District Meerut." 6. The petitioner had also preferred another Writ C No.26005 of 2024 under Article 226 of Constitution of India inter-alia with following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 passed by respondent no.2. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09/13.11.2017 passed by the respondent no.3. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities not to proceed the auction proceedings and in the light of power conferred under the Act, 1973, the Rules 2014 framed thereto and relevant Government Orders; the land use allotted to the petitioner Trust for developing the Health Centre, shall be changed to commercial activities to the allotted land in favour of petitioners vide dated 20.12.2012. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioners." 7. In view of the administrative order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being collectively decided by the common judgement. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 8. We have laid down the factual matrix leading to the instant writ petitions below. 9. It reflects from the record that Meerut Development Authority [MDA] had launched Shraddhapuri Phase-II Scheme in the year 1988-89, whereunder, for auction of one plot area 2920 sq. mtr. with reserved price Rs.8,000/- per sq. mtr. for Health Centre in Sharaddhapur Phase-II Scheme alongwith four other plots of other schemes. The technical bid/financial bid was invited fixing a date of 22.11.2012 for opening of bid and five persons had participated in the auction proceeding. The petitioner, which is a trust, also participated in the auction bid and being as highest bidder @ Rs.14,000/- per sq. mtr., petitioner's bid was accepted. Consequently an allotment letter dated 20.12.2012 was also issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, which is a trust, also participated in the auction bid and being as highest bidder @ Rs.14,000/- per sq. mtr., petitioner's bid was accepted. Consequently an allotment letter dated 20.12.2012 was also issued in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the offer amount, adjusting the earnest money i.e. Rs.23,36,000/- deposited earlier, within a month and remaining amount i.e. 75% was to be deposited in three years in six equal installments with 16% interest. For ready reference, the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter about the future installments are reproduced as under:- ROI Duration Pmt. Type Principal Amt. No. Instal. 16.00 3 6 30660000.00 6 10. It is claimed that the petitioner had deposited 25% amount i.e. Rs.1,02,20,000/- by 19.01.2013 and thereafter defaulted in payment of installments. He had deposited Rs.57,50,000/- only against six installments. For ready reference, the deposits made by the petitioner is reproduced below:- Vch. No. Vch. No. Credit Amt. 021406270104 27.06.2014 150000 021406240106 27.06.2014 150000 021406270105 27.06.2014 200000 021406270102 27.06.2014 500000 021406270103 27.06.2014 1000000 021406270102 27.06.2014 1000000 021408050049 05.08.2014 2550000 021603300065 30.03.2016 100000 021703300034 30.03.2017 100000 Total Amt. Against installments 57,50,000/- 11. Consequent thereto, the MDA had issued a notice dated 03/11.09.2013, wherein, demand of Rs.74,44,249/- was made. When the same was not paid, another notice dated 19.11.2014 was sent to deposit Rs.4,68,39,269/- by 15. 12.2014. As there was admitted default, the petitioner applied for One Time Settlement [OTS] vide application dated 31.03.2016. The said application was processed and calculation chart was prepared on 22.04.2016. Under the OTS Scheme, the petitioner was required to deposit total Rs.4,27,74,579/- in two installments i.e. first installment of Rs.2,13,87,289.50 on 22.05.2016 and second installment of Rs.2,13,87,289.50 on 21.06.2016. The petitioner once again defaulted in payment of the above two installments under the OTS scheme. 12. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued another notice dated 11.08.2016 with direction to deposit total Rs.5,41,73,471/- by 31.08.2016 after adjusting Rs. 1,58,70,000/-, which was earlier deposited. The petitioner again applied for OTS vide application dated 31.03.2017 and calculation chart was also prepared on 18.04.2017. As per the calculation chart, the petitioner had to deposit total Rs.4,81,90,608/- in two installments including other charges of Rs. 85,90,900/-. 13. 1,58,70,000/-, which was earlier deposited. The petitioner again applied for OTS vide application dated 31.03.2017 and calculation chart was also prepared on 18.04.2017. As per the calculation chart, the petitioner had to deposit total Rs.4,81,90,608/- in two installments including other charges of Rs. 85,90,900/-. 13. The petitioner again failed to deposit both the installments under the second OTS scheme and, therefore, the petitioner was issued another notice dated 11.09.2017 with direction to deposit total Rs.6,90,26,253/- by 30.09.2017. 14. The petitioner, instead of clearing the due installments, had made an application dated 17.07.2017 before the respondent, wherein, the petitioner indicated his willingness not to deposit any amount further but in place thereof requested for allotment of part of allotted land of the price equal to the amount deposited by him so far after changing its land use from Health Centre to Commercial and for the said purpose had provided reasoning in the following terms:- 15. In view of the successive defaults, the proposal was made by MDA for cancellation of allotment, which was duly accorded approval by the Vice Chairman, MDA on 13.11.2017. By the said letter, it was also informed to the petitioner to provide information of bank account for transfer of the amount, which was returned in terms of the allotment letter. The order passed by the Vice Chairman, MDA was subjected to challenge under Section 41(3) of the Act 1973 before the Government of U.P. Finally, the State Government vide order dated 4/18.12.2020 had rejected the same, which is subject matter of challenge in leading Writ C No.21518 of 2021. 16. In the midst of the proceeding before learned Single Judge, a Review Application dated 01.04.2022 was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4/18.12.2020, even though the writ petition was pending consideration. The review application was also rejected by the Government vide order dated 28.04.2022 with an observation that there is no provision of review preferred against the order passed under Section 41(3) of the Act 1973 and it would be appropriate to consider the request of land use change under the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, 1973. Relevant part of the finding is extracted as under:- 17. Relevant part of the finding is extracted as under:- 17. It also transpires from the record that in compliance of the observation made by the State Government dated 28.04.2022, even though there was no specific direction by the Revisional Authority, the MDA had issued notice to the petitioner on 16.07.2022 fixing a date for 19.07.2022 at 12 AM for hearing but instead of availing such opportunity, the petitioner had sent a request letter dated 18.07.2022 alongwith medical certificate, wherein, plea was taken of serious ailment. The Authority, thereafter, deferred the hearing of the matter and another notice dated 20.09.2022 was sent fixing another date i.e. 28. 09.2022 at 4.30 p.m. Even in response thereof, another adjournment was asked in the light of Doctor's advice of bed rest. 18. Finally the Board of MDA, in its meeting held on 12.01.2024, had considered the proposal of numerous undisposed properties of the authority of different category and scheme and in accordance with G.O. dated 13.10.1998, the layout was also got changed after inviting objections/suggestions from public by advertising in daily newspaper namely Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran and Hindustan etc. on 06.06.2024, whereunder, the objections were called in the layout plan and accordingly, 30 days time was allowed i.e. till 05.07.2024. The record reflects that no such objection has been filed by the petitioner against land use and finally, the Board, in its meeting dated 25.07.2024, approved the changed layout plan. The MDA had also resolved that the undisposed 416 properties, including the property in question (at serial No.196 to 205 at Page 40 of W.P. No.26005 of 2024), be put to auction on scheduled date. The auction had taken place on 12.08.2024 (extended date), whereunder, plot in question has been fragmented in ten parts for different use. The MDA had received minimum bid @ Rs.1,38,020/- and highest upto Rs.2,58,687/-and same is at serial no.48 to 57 of the auction result dated 24.08.2024, wheresas the bid of the petitioner for the same plot in November, 2012 was for Rs.14500/- per square meter. The auction result is also brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit. It is pertinent to note that while entertaining subsequent Writ C No.26005 of 2024 on 08.08.2024, the Division Bench observed that “in the meantime, the auction, if any, in the matter would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.” SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER 19. The auction result is also brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit. It is pertinent to note that while entertaining subsequent Writ C No.26005 of 2024 on 08.08.2024, the Division Bench observed that “in the meantime, the auction, if any, in the matter would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.” SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER 19. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that after the allotment made in the year 2012, the petitioner had been asking the authority to convert the land use from the category of health to commercial, but the same was not done by the authority, hence, the petitioner refused to pay the further installments. After the cancellation of the allotment of the plot on 09/13.11.2017, the authority has chosen to convert the land use from health to commercial plot, which was sought by the petitioner. 20. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the cancellation of allotment vide order dated 13.11.2017 as well as the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the State Government in Revision No.1440/2017, under Section 41(3) of Act, 1973 upholding the cancellation order, were challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No.21518 of 2021, and while the matter was pending, the respondents did not file a counter affidavit but chosen to go ahead with the auction. They could not have proceeded with the auction as the matter was pending before this Court. He had placed reliance on a Government Order dated 20.11.1999, which lays down provision for restoring the cancelled plots after taking a requisite fee, interest and penalty as per the rules for the restoration. He submitted that the benefit of this Government Order has not been extended to the petitioner. SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 21. Per contra, Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted that the MDA had launched a scheme known as Shraddhapuri Phase-II Scheme, wherein a plot admeasuring 2920 square meters was put for auction with a reserved price of Rs.8,000/- per square meters. Bids were invited and on 22.11.2012 the bid of the petitioner being Rs.14,000/- per square meters was the highest bid and, hence, this plot was allotted to him vide letter dated 20.12.2012. Bids were invited and on 22.11.2012 the bid of the petitioner being Rs.14,000/- per square meters was the highest bid and, hence, this plot was allotted to him vide letter dated 20.12.2012. As per the scheme, the petitioner was supposed to pay 25% as a down payment for allotment, which the petitioner had done and the petitioner was supposed to pay the remaining balance amount in six half yearly installments starting from 19.07.2013 up to 19.01.2016. 22. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the installments but started defaulting and had only paid Rs.57.5 lacs. Since the petitioner had defaulted in paying the installments a notice was issued to him on 3/11.09.2013 for the payment of outstanding amount but the same was not paid. Another notice was issued on 19.11.2014 and again the same was defaulted. The petitioner taking advantage of OTS Scheme applied for the same and his proposal was accepted and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.4,27,74,579/- in two installments i.e. first installment on 22.05.2016 of Rs.2,13,87,289.50 and second installment on 21.06.2016 of Rs.2,13,87,289.50. 23. He further submitted that the petitioner, who was not serious in paying the money, again defaulted in the OTS Scheme. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued another notice on 11.08.2016 asking the petitioner to deposit the balance amount. This amount was also not paid by the petitioner. After defaulting so many times, the petitioner yet again sought second OTS with the respondents in which again an opportunity was given to him to pay the outstanding amount in two installments but again the petitioner, who had no intention to pay, defaulted in the same. Thereafter, a notice was issued by respondent no.2 on 11.09.2017 to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.6.90 crores. 24. He submitted that instead of paying the money, the petitioner moved a representation for change of land use from health to commercial. However, the petitioner, who had no intention of paying the money, chose not to deposit any amount towards the outstanding installments. In view of successive defaults, the proposal was made by the MDA for cancellation of allotment, which was duly accorded approval by the Vice Chairman, MDA on 13.11.2017. However, the petitioner, who had no intention of paying the money, chose not to deposit any amount towards the outstanding installments. In view of successive defaults, the proposal was made by the MDA for cancellation of allotment, which was duly accorded approval by the Vice Chairman, MDA on 13.11.2017. By the said letter, it was also informed to the petitioner to provide information of bank account for transfer of the amount, which was to be returned in terms of the allotment letter. This order of allotment of cancellation was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision before the State Government under Section 41 (3) of Act, 1973 and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 18.12.2020. Both the orders were assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.21518 of 2021. While the matter was pending before this Court, the petitioner chose to file a review application under Section 41(3) of 1973 Act, which was also rejected vide order dated 28.04.2022. 25. He further submitted that since there were number of undisposed properties with the MDA in different category and schemes, so the MDA as per the powers given to them, carved out small plots as commercial and put the same for auction. The auction was carried out and the highest bid for the plot was Rs.2,58,687 per square meters on 24.08.2024 as against the bid of Rs.14500 made by the petitioner in November, 2012. 26. He further submitted that the petitioner, who had no intention of paying, had defaulted in paying the installments, and thereafter, twice sought for OTS and even the same was accorded. Still the petitioner did not honour the commitment and paid the outstanding amount. Now, the petitioner wants to take advantage of its own default, and by means of instant petition, he wants to usurp this plot at a price, of the year 2012. 27. He further submitted that no leniency in the matter should be granted as the petitioner had no intention for developing the plot for the purpose for which it was allotted, and only wanted to take the advantage of the increased real estate price over a period of time. He further submitted that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. CONCLUSION 28. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. He further submitted that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. CONCLUSION 28. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. With the able assistance, we have perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the petitions, affidavits and annexures thereto and the reply filed by concerned parties. 29. It is apparent that the petitioner had submitted a bid for a plot admeasuring 2920 square meters on 22.11.2012, wherein the reserved price was Rs.8000 square meters and his bid being a highest was of Rs.14000 per square metter. Accordingly, the allotment letter was issued on 20.12.2012, wherein as per the terms of the allotment the petitioner was supposed to pay 25% of the bid amount, which he had paid, and the balance amount, the petitioner had to pay in six half yearly installments starting from 19.07.2013 to 19.01.2016 but the petiitoner had failed to pay the installments. 30. The respondent no.2 had sent various notices to the petitioner on 03/11.09.2013, 19.11.2014 and 11.08.2016 but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it and did not pay any installments. The petitioner applied for OTS on 31.03.2016, which the respondents agreed but the petitioner again defaulted in paying the same. Again a notice was sent to the petitioner on 11.08.2016 but the petitioner again defaulted with the same. Thereafter, the petitioner moved for a second OTS, which was approved, but the petitioner chose not to pay the agreed amount as a OTS. Thereafter the respondent had no other alternative except to cancel the allotment of the petitioner on 13.11.2017. The same was challenged by the petitioner under Section 41 (3) of the Act, 1973, which was rejected by the State Government on 04/18.12.2020. The same was assailed by the petitioner by means of instant writ petition (Writ Petition No.21518 of 2021) in which there was no interim order. 31. During pendency of instant writ petition, the MDA had sub-divided the plots and put the same for auction, wherein the MDA got a highest offer of Rs.2,58,687/- per square meters, it was then the petitioner wanted to take back the plot. Thereafter the petitioner moved yet another petition being Wrti Petition No.26005 of 2024 seeking quashing of the e-auction proceeding by which the land was allotted into small plots and put to auction. Thereafter the petitioner moved yet another petition being Wrti Petition No.26005 of 2024 seeking quashing of the e-auction proceeding by which the land was allotted into small plots and put to auction. Since both the petitions arose out of the same issue, hence, the earlier petition was tagged along and are being heard together. 32. Looking into the entire conspectus and the conduct of the petitioner it is apparent that either the petitioner did not have the money to pay or do not want to pay the installments. Once the plot was cancelled, the cancellation order was assailed by the petitioner before the State Government and, thereafter, in this writ petition. In either of the case, it is not open in law for the petitioners to take advantage of his own default. 33. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready and willing to take all the plots allotted to various people at the cost on which the sub-divided plots were allotted in the auction, which were at Serial Nos.196 to 205. 34. On this the Court asked the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3 to take instructions on the same. 35. On the next date of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 & 3 very fairly conceded that though the petitioner has no case, but as a special case the request of the petitioner can be considered only if he is ready and willing to pay the entire money up front as his past conduct does not aspire any confidence. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner again took time to seek instructions and on the next date of listing he came up with the proposal that the petitioner is ready to pay the price but wanted the same in installments, which was not accepted by the counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 37. It is a clear case, where the petitioner has failed to deposit the installments as stated in the allotment letter and had not paid the allotment amount, which was due from 2013 to 2016. Twice the petitioner had moved for OTS and the same was accepted but the petitioner on his own accord did not honour the same. 37. It is a clear case, where the petitioner has failed to deposit the installments as stated in the allotment letter and had not paid the allotment amount, which was due from 2013 to 2016. Twice the petitioner had moved for OTS and the same was accepted but the petitioner on his own accord did not honour the same. Apparently, the petitioner had no intention of paying the money in time and had not come to this Court with clean hands, so no benefit can be accorded to the petitioner, who is a chronic defaulter. 38. The Writ Petition No.21518 of 2021 has been filed assiling the cancellation order dated 09/13.11.2017 as well as the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by respondent no.2 on the revision petition under Section 41(3) of the Act, 1973. We see no illegality in both the aforesaid orders, hence, the petition lacks merit. Even the second Writ Petition No.26005 of 2024 filed by the petitioner challenging the e-auction of various plots, also has no merit as the same has been filed just to hold back the auction. The petitioner has no legally sustainable ground to challenge the e-auction. 39. Both the writ petitions lack merit and are accordingly, dismissed.